LosLobo

I’m planning to become a Yaris Cross owner later this year. My decision is primarily influenced by Toyota’s reputation for reliability, their extensive dealer network, the compact size of the vehicle, and its impressive ground clearance of 210mm. While the vehicle’s fuel economy is certainly a plus, it doesn’t significantly impact the total cost of ownership for me. This car isn’t just for me - it will be shared among my partner, her daughter, and myself. Its smaller size makes it easy to handle, park, and manoeuvre, which is a big advantage for the other halves. Living in Thailand, we often encounter flooded roads. The high ground clearance of this vehicle makes it a very practical choice. My son had the opportunity to drive this model recently and he was particularly impressed by several features: 1) The convenience of a hybrid that doesn’t require charging like an electric vehicle. 2) The elevated driving position that offers a panoramic view aided by the 360-degree camera. 3) The comprehensive Safety Sense package. 4) The smooth acceleration and deceleration without excessive engine revving, a common issue with most CVTs. In conclusion, this vehicle seems to tick all the right boxes for our family’s needs and preferences.

I know you are only interested in a Yaris Cross as your OP says 'Ány Yaris Cross Owners' and this is more than likely off topic. But for value, economy and reliability have you considered my favourite mode of transport?

True, yet Trump was indicted. It will be interesting to see what SCOTUS decides on his immunity.

In the hypothetical scenario mentioned here, if there were credible evidence that Representatives Comer and Jordan conspired to help a foreign power intervene in an election, I would suggest this would likely fall outside the scope of their legislative activities and could potentially be subject to investigation and criminal prosecution. This is similar to the reason why Trump already lost his immunity appeal in the 2020 Election Interference case. I would also suggest that the clause does not protect members of Congress from impeachment proceedings.

'Facts for Biden's impeachment'? As 'any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source' I would suggest that mere opinion from James Comer, Gym Jordan, other GOP members and their witnesses, could never ever be classed as facts from a credible source.

But.. but... Jesse Waters says Smirnov is 'one of the FBI's top informants, a guy with impeccable credentials, a great track record' and 'the highly credible, multilingual, extremely, trustworthy, long time, confidential, FBI informant'. Starts 2:36

Goldman : 'If they continue with this investigation, they are opening themselves up to a criminal investigation for conspiring with Russia to interfere in the 2024 election'. Bring it on, impeach James Comer and Gym Jones with their own 'credible' whistleblower Smirnov as the Democrats star witness for the prosecution.

There was some 'chatter' about portability not being indefinite some years ago, but this seems to have stopped. I think I even found a reference at the time on the DSS site but cannot now. Maybe COVID put damper on it as many former residents who already had portability returned home. Morrison said Australia was closing its borders and put a deadline of anyone returning. I think there were many concessions allowed at the time by Centrelink. Many Centrelink customers on holidays who could not get flights back were allowed dispensations. This is from 2016, it may or may not be current: Indefinite Portability of Pensions and Former Residents 'You should note that even if you return to Australia and “resume residing” after receiving Age Pension overseas for years, there is a risk that these provisions could prevent you from being paid outside Australia again. Centrelink may take the view that you have “resumed residing” in Australia and you would have to continue “residing” in Australia for 2 years before having indefinite portability of your payment. However, if you can show that you only returned to Australia for a visit and never intended to permanently return then the rules would not apply to you'. BRQ-IndefinitePortabilityandFormerResidents-BRQ2016.pdf

If Trump declares bankruptcy, he will achieve the not so holy trinity of being morally, legally and financially bankrupt. What better credentials for a presidential candidate, who originally campaigned on his acumen of being a successful billionaire.

You would think that if you were eligible for SAPTO you could claim the offset and reduce the holding tax that has already been deducted, but maybe not? Nevertheless, 10% holding tax on the interest on my savings would be miniscule.

Your responses fail to address the crucial element of Trump’s governance during the COVID-19 crisis, which required a response centered on public health rather than politics, resulting in the avoidable loss of countless lives. Instead, you go down a series of rabbit holes using logical fallacies. Let’s consider the logical fallacies in your responses: Red Herring Fallacy: The statement about the U.S. healthcare system favoring the wealthy, though potentially valid, diverts from the discussion of Trump’s handling of COVID-19. It introduces an unrelated issue, which can distract from evaluating the administration’s response to the health emergency. Tu Quoque Fallacy: By suggesting that previous administrations are also to blame for not fixing the healthcare system, your argument deflects from the current topic. This fallacy attempts to discredit the criticism of Trump’s unfulfilled campaign promises by pointing out others’ failures, rather than addressing the promises themselves. Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy: Acknowledging that Obamacare was enacted 14 years ago does not address the current relevance or impact of the law. This statement, while true, does not contribute to the assessment of Trump’s actions or inactions regarding healthcare reform during his term. In summary, while historical context is important, focus should remain on the specific actions taken by the Trump administration in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. IMHO

Yes, blame to the Republicans who have had decades to help fix it. Seems Democrats have always been interested in healthcare and introduced most of the initiatives with significant opposition from Republicans: 1) Truman’s National Healthcare Plan: Truman’s proposal for a national healthcare plan in 1945 faced opposition from Republicans and the fear that the program would be a “Communist” act. 2) Johnson's Medicare and Medicaid: While the Medicare and Medicaid programs were signed into law in 1965, there have been instances of Republican opposition to these programs over the years. For example, Republican Sen. Rick Scott has proposed that all federal legislation should “sunset” in five years. 3) Obamacare: The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, faced significant opposition from Republicans since its inception and there were multiple attempts to repeal the law.

Yet, Trump in 2015 campaigned on universal healthcare, so the US 'poor healthcare system which favours the wealthy' is Trump's fault. “I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now,” he said. Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016/Healthcare - Ballotpedia

I was suggesting that Trump may be a tacit 'sponsor of a sponsor' by failing to condemn Putin in his latest rant. 'But Trump made no mention of Putin or Navalny’s family in the post Monday morning that instead cast himself as a victim and continued to paint the U.S. as a nation in decline'. 'Trump has been criticized for nearly a decade now for his refusal to denounce the Russian leader and his frequent complimentary statements'. Though, as white supremacist terrorism is currently the biggest terrorism threat in US. 'Proud boys stand back and stand by' does come to mind Trump talks of his own legal problems when speaking about the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny | PBS NewsHour

If Putin is a sponsor of terrorism after the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny what does that make Trump?

Are you sure you want to take the red pill? The Nature of Facts and Reality: A Philosophical Inquiry What constitutes a fact, and the nature of reality is a profound one, touching on areas of epistemology (the study of knowledge) and metaphysics (the study of the nature of reality). How do we know what is a fact? A fact is typically understood as a statement that corresponds with reality and can be proven to be true or false. Philosophers have debated the criteria for something to be considered a fact. The correspondence theory of truth suggests that a fact is something that is true because it corresponds to a state of affairs in the world. However, determining this correspondence can be challenging, as our perceptions and interpretations of reality can be subjective. The question of whether we are in a lucid dream or an alternate reality, touches on the problem of skepticism in philosophy. René Descartes famously used the method of doubt to question the certainty of his own existence and concluded with “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”). This suggests a baseline for reality: the self-awareness of one’s own existence and thoughts. Philosophically, the discussion of reality is complex and has led to various theories, such as: 1) Phenomenalism, which suggests that reality is constructed by our sensory experiences. 2) Realism, which posits that a reality exists independently of our perceptions. 3) Solipsism, which argues that only one’s own mind is sure to exist. Ultimately, the nature of facts and reality is a rich field of philosophical debate, and while we may use empirical evidence and consensus as practical measures, the philosophical questions remain open and deeply intriguing. IMHO

Correct, they are necessary service providers and not manufacturers, but your point is not clear. Is your point that they are overpriced?

The Republican Party has traditionally championed limited government intervention, advocating for individual liberty. However, their recent policies on abortion and contraception, coupled with their tacit support of misogyny and sexual assault, starkly contrast their foundational principles and may alienate many women voters. Note: In recent years, the number of women registered to vote in the U.S. has typically exceeded the number of men by approximately 10 million, highlighting significant gender differences in voter turnout. Gender Differences in Voter Turnout

MagaWorld's usage of 'woke' is a good example of 'always trying to control and redefine language to score political points.

Aerospace & Defence is far from very lucrative compared to other industries. Here are some of the major industries in the US sorted by their average net profit margin: Industry Average Net Profit Margin Financial Data & Stock Exchanges 28.2% Banks - Regional 27.6% Asset Management 24.3% Credit Services 22.5% Drug Manufacturers - General 18.6% Farm & Heavy Construction Machinery 6.9% Agricultural Inputs 6.5% Auto Manufacturers 7.2% Chemicals 5.4% Aerospace & Defense 4.6% Profit margin by industry, gross and net profit margins

The $355M verdict would suggest the court ignored Trump's testimony. 'Trump took the stand and testified that the properties whose values he's accused of inflating were actually undervalued, based on the premium his “brand” adds. He also said that banks didn't rely on his statements of financial condition when weighing loans'. The latest reporting 'In New York, the Trump Brand Is Costing Some Condo Owners' suggests the validity of the old adage 'Everything Trump Touches Dies'. Donald Trump is getting richer (smh.com.au) In New York, the Trump Brand Is Costing Some Condo Owners - The New York Times (archive.md)

DFT? or DTA? Can you quote the section where bank interest is not paid?

The discussion was about Australians being classed as non-residents in Australia and paying holding tax on interest in Australia.

The discussion was a scenario where is no pension funds were transferred from Australia to Thailand, what tax would be payable on the bank interest on the savings in Australia, nothing to do with Thai government.

I like to always be the 'devils advocate' and assume the worst scenario, and through discussion, hope to be proved wrong. Is there any evidence that Australians living in Thailand aren't non-residents for tax purposes? Australians living overseas | Australian Taxation Office (ato.gov.au) Coming to Australia or going overseas | Australian Taxation Office (ato.gov.au)